Friday, July 28, 2017

I’ve been receiving an increasing frequency of emails from gaystream media whores soliciting this blog’s lordship for a roll in the clickbait hay. All of them, to date, have requested absolute privacy (the irony), so I won’t divulge details on threat of (((legal))) recriminations, but I can offer a general impression of what they’re asking. For instance, one media whore speaking on behalf of a well-known whoresite is part of a team putting together a piece of agitprop art on the manosphere and wanted CH’s scintillating contribution to the effort.

I’ve wondered for a few months how best to respond to these inquiries. So far, the CH policy has been to ignore and plow. No j/k, it’s been to ignore. Period. I never respond, partly because, what’s the use? I won’t persuade a shriek of shitlibs to accept in their hearts the Rude Word of the Chateau, and I certainly can’t expect to be treated fairly by these toads. More practically, I am very careful to guard my shadowy dimensions, and there is a risk, however muted through multiple proxies and TOR nodes, that a reply by me would be scoured for identifying info by a black ops team at Fusion GPS (stands for Grabbing Pussy Systems).

But the inquiries are getting more insistent and coming from bigger and bigger names. So I’m reconsidering my standard policy of ignoring them; perhaps for an upgrade to a “lol suck a dik” response? I have toyed with the idea of a conditional reply. That is, I set the ground rules and they swear by them in writing before I offer any penetrating insights of my tumescent wisdom.

Now, isn't that hypocritical advice, considering that I just spent three hours having lunch with a reporter from Rolling Stone and other mainstream media institutions?

Well, to put it into perspective, that is the first request I have accepted in the last 50+ requests I have received. Furthermore, I have not spoken - in the sense of actually speaking via TV, radio, or telephone - to a single mainstream media reporter since I made the mistake of speaking to Amy Wallace of Wired back in 2015.

In other words, you can see it as hypocrisy or you can see it as a rare exception to the rule. I leave it to you to decide which scenario is more applicable.

As for the interview yesterday, I agreed to it after reading the reporter's various articles and seeing that she was a smart and perceptive writer who was clearly more interested in getting to know the subject and presenting a compelling in-depth story than writing generic hit pieces upholding the current narrative. Not only that, but she was clearly willing to go to far greater lengths, and put in a lot more time and effort into a piece, than was necessary for anyone simply bolstering a preconceived narrative, even when the subject was someone for whom it was very difficult to have any sympathy.

Now, obviously we'll see whether my decision was a foolish one or not when the story eventually runs in a few months, but there were no gotcha questions asked, and it was interesting to learn, in the course of the interview, that she correctly observed something about Castalia House's protagonists that neither I nor anyone else had picked up upon before.

Imagine the outcome is ideal: the article isn't a hatchet-job, and it boosts sales of your books and clicks on your sites. Isn't part of the point of Don't Talk to the Media to starve them of content? Even if they help you more than you help them, you're not hastening their demise. Which is a goal you fervently wish to achieve.

You have to weigh the risk of talking to them against not only what kind of article they'll like and how much they'll help you, but also what is best for the movement, which is for the Dinosaur Media to go extinct. It's a difficult choice, and I don't know the answer. Generally, speaking I don't like the idea of talking to them if you're not going to make them look bad (i.e. "trolling" them) in addition to making yourself look good.

This is yet another reason why it's normally useless to talk to them. Now in the case of CH and IG, this isn't such an issue since both will continue to develop over time and a few months is nothing in terms of their growth and development.

"All of them, to date, have requested absolute privacy (the irony), so I won't divulge details on threat of (((legal))) recriminations, but I can offer a general impression of what they're asking"

I don't understand. They proffer requests for interviews out of the blue, and he ignores them. Yet somehow there are secret negotiations the details of which he can't reveal under threat of legal action? How did that happen?

Do lawyers actually think one cannot talk to others about emails freely sent to them by third parties, without any sort of agreement between the sender and sendee, or even any acknowledgment by the sendee?

Or is Chateau lying, and rather than ignore them he accepts initial conditions out of morbid curiosity, in order to hear their Byzantine stipulations?

@10-When I said "your book's" I was thinking in terms of "your company's books" as well, not just of the books he's personally written. Vox being the founder of and editor at Castalia House, and the article being (supposedly) about the company.

May be good in setting a precedent for future comm with the snakepit. My gut tells me however that in this current political climate, the left is desperate to find a major hit and one could be seen as helping a publication, prior to the collapse, that went out of its way to paint western white culture as evil.

Something else to consider when dealing with the Party Media is safety. Vox is a public real figure so there is no personal risk in answering an email or meeting in person. Heartiste is anonymous so unless he has years of training and experience in infosec he should never even open an email from them. They would dearly love to dox him.

Next they will use lawfare against him in an attempt to force him from hiding. Anyone in such a position should probably be networking with Ace at Ace of Spaces HQ since he has successfully been against such an attempt for several years now, since his involvement in WeinerGate. He ain't Alt-Right yet but has made it to Alt-Light.

The difference, Vox pointed out a while ago in a different thread's comment section, is that one of them is marketing a product, whereas the other is about a person's views.

Some people are their own brand. Most people aren't however. Either way it becomes somewhat acceptable to talk to the media about your product because no matter how they paint you as the next fascist in fancy clothes, no matter how well you managed to get your views across to them, no matter who "won" the debate/interview, you still managed your goals if you raised awareness of your product.

Yeah, it's a fine line to tread. Someone like Chateau, who already has a built in base and is his own brand, could* come out clean and with even more good following.

It makes me think of Cernovich and CNN - he knew he'd come out stronger because of his base and he calculated that the risks were worth it. He may get an extra amount of followers or interested parties no matter what kind of FASCIST they portrayed him as. Plus, he's already been through the SJW ringer, so he knows how to handle it.

...it was interesting to learn, in the course of the interview, that she correctly observed something about Castalia House's protagonists that neither I nor anyone else had picked up upon before.

Nice. Always cut on the action.

Well, to put it into perspective, that is the first request I have accepted in the last 50+ requests I have received.

Well, out of the past 50+ hitman contracts I've been offered, I've only accepted one of them, so I'm really not a hitman.

OT- http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/index.htmAccording to Bellon, the conversation with President Bachelet was positive and focused on a range of topics, including similar climate change impacts that Chile and Washington contend with, such as drought and ocean health. Discussions also included renewable energy, economic transformation, and economic transformation.

That's illegal, afaik. The States are specifically forbidden from working deals with foreign .govs, whether for economic transformation or for economic transformation.http://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MOUChileWashington.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Bad idea for anyone who wants to stay anonymous. There would probably be shitlibs trying to cut my brake line if they knew how many black/brown nurses I took out of the field by reporting how to find a type of fraud.

There is absolutely a level of difference between Cernovich as a brand, and Heartiste as a brand.

Cernovich aggressively promotes himself, his books, his website, his media, all these sorts of things. Heartiste is more of a philosopher, and he himself is not a product that he's selling people, whereas Cernovich is.

Put in another way, Heartiste markets his ideas, and Cernovich markets himself. And the MSM are there to try and make sure your ideas don't gain any traction with their viewers.

I'd have to say Heartiste absolutely should not talk to the media. Mock the everliving hell out of them, however? Certainly. But he's not Milo or Trump.

I don't understand. They proffer requests for interviews out of the blue, and he ignores them. Yet somehow there are secret negotiations the details of which he can't reveal under threat of legal action? How did that happen?

Do lawyers actually think one cannot talk to others about emails freely sent to them by third parties, without any sort of agreement between the sender and sendee, or even any acknowledgment by the sendee?

You ever receive an email from someone at a big CPA firm, big consulting firm or big lawyers office? They all have signature lines that "state the correspondence is strictly meant for the addressed party only and divulging the contents of the email to an unauthorized party is strictly prohibited under Section XXX etc. etc. "

So, in other words, your policy is to refuse all media requests from people who fail a thorough background check, rather than just taking their word for it. The same could reasonably be applied to at right personalities without contradiction.

Any legal eagles care to comment?They can't make treaties. They can't commit the Us or their own state to any particular course of action. But of course the can talk, and of course they can come to an agreement about some things. But that agreement is an agreement between two men, not between two governments.

Lew Rockwell wrote:You will be turned into a hate object. A hate object for people (rolling stone readers) who would have never been on your side. people who despise your deplorable existence.

Vox already explained his reasoning in great detail, in an argument revolving around CH's obligations to its authors. If RS publishes, it's free publicity. If they choose to libel VD, that's free publicity too.

Do you really think the Supreme Dark Lord, or any of his multitudinous students, cares at all about who supposedly hates them?

You ever receive an email from someone at a big CPA firm, big consulting firm or big lawyers office? They all have signature lines that "state the correspondence is strictly meant for the addressed party only and divulging the contents of the email to an unauthorized party is strictly prohibited under Section XXX etc. etc. "

But is that actually enforceable? They can say whatever they want in an email signature, it doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

Put a sign on the back of your truck saying you're not liable for things falling out of your truck and damaging other vehicles, and see how well that holds up if you dump part of your load and cause an accident or damage another vehicle.

As for the interview yesterday, I agreed to it after reading the reporter's various articles and seeing that she was a smart and perceptive writer who was clearly more interested in getting to know the subject and presenting a compelling in-depth story than writing generic hit pieces upholding the current narrative.

Ok, but as you have pointed out to others, the editor decides what slant to put on the story the reporter writes.

Be that as it may, interesting experiment. Maybe it will just be otherwise filed, like the Milo NPR interview.

> They all have signature lines that "state the correspondence is strictly meant for the addressed party only and divulging the contents of the email to an unauthorized party is strictly prohibited under Section XXX etc. etc.

Yeah. Well, I hate to break this to you, but lawyers lie.

Besides, if you're the intended recipient, that doesn't apply. And if the contact wasn't solicited, you never agreed not to divulge it.

How many cease and desist orders have you seen posted over the years? Don't you think they all had that same boilerplate notice? How many people have you seen sued or go to jail for posting them?

Rolling Stone is a boomer rag. It started in the sixties - muh counterculture! - and rode the wave of degeneracy to financial success. It refuses to recognize that it is, and has long been, The Establishment, the same way boomers refuse to recognize that they're old.

Who knows? But most people don't want to get in a legal fight with the kind of place that can hire a bunch of lawyers, just for the sake of some blog fodder.

True, and there's a whole swath of other abusive behavior that's not practical to fight against given our legal system. Loads of businesses are built on the practice of fucking people over enough to be profitable, but not so much that they'll be able to justify getting a lawyer involved, even on contingency. It sucks.

Almost always that boilerplate cites a federal wiretapping law that does not in any way, shape or form apply to a person that has received an email, and absolutely positively without a doubt not an email correctly (!) addressed to them.

Lawyers know it is bullshit, but they put it on their emails for two reasons: some people think it is real, and they pray that they can dodge some liability in the future by pretending that including it in their .sig block means they took reasonable precautions not to disclose confidential information.

as i pointed out on CH, his own victory terms, by definition, are either not achievable ( not possible for a Leftist to be "shamed" by a Hitler ) or would render him criminally liable for inciting acts of harassment.

Yiannapolousussusususus and Cernovich are a different matter. they are both selling drama and excitement. the more public attention they get the more money they make, whether the attention is good or bad.

if YOU can figure out a way to monetize the media spotlight on youthen get on with your bad self.

i don't think CH is monetizing his website at all and he himself is anon. it's undoubtedly true that being publicly revealed would likely be very harmful to however he makes a living.

therefore, there's no upside for him ( and most of us ) to bother talking to legacy media at all.

Vox is trying to gin up attention for Castalia House ( Chateau Heartiste .... Castalia House .... Chateau Heartiste .... Castalia House ... hrm, i never noticed that CH before ), so his talking to Rolling Stone falls under the reasonable exemption to the general principle.

37. roughcoat July 28, 2017 7:49 PMBut is that actually enforceable?

my assumption would be that the defendant would simply demand Summary Judgment that the case be thrown out for lacking Merit.

a contract in which one party can unilaterally force terms upon another party means that the 2nd party is being forced into the contract under Duress. therefore the contract *should* be legally void.

however, you always run the risk of these worms finding an amenable incompetent ( as is happening to Mark Steyn with his diversity hire judge in the DC circuit ) who will rule against you simply on an ideological basis and/or permit all kinds of idiotic delaying tactics.

I thought CH (Roissy) had already been outed, years ago, back when he was just Roissy?? Then I read that someone new supposedly was the author of CH, which was either good gaslighting or as bizarre as an Uncle suddenly showing up IN THE SAME place on Land of the Lost.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:They can't make treaties. They can't commit the Us or their own state to any particular course of action. But of course the can talk, and of course they can come to an agreement about some things. But that agreement is an agreement between two men, not between two government

Thanks, Snidely. Agree. Agree. Agree. Disagree. It is an agreement made between two governments by their respective representatives acting in their capacity as Officers of their respective governments, along with a number of Offices listed. Calling it a MOU does not alter that fact. The MOU contains language "to facilitate this collaboration and to implement the actions called for in this MOU." For example, "[d]eveloping exchanges and temporary assignments, particularly the [WA] State Energy office [sic] and the Ministry of Energy, Chile".

That, it can be argued in a federal case of US vs WA, is an attempt to put the State of Washington on the same legal footing as the government of Chile, as is the title and the opening paragraph. Notice the word "actions", which generally mean more than talk-talk.

It concludes with the claim that "This MOU is neither a contract nor a treaty"... and the WA governor's signature is MIA, oopsie.

However, just because they claim that it is not a contract/compact/treaty doesn't mean that it is not a contract, compact, and/or treaty:

roughcoat wrote:Put a sign on the back of your truck saying you're not liable for things falling out of your truck and damaging other vehicles, and see how well that holds up if you dump part of your load and cause an accident or damage another vehicle.

Rolling Stone won't benefit from the article in any case. The Alt-Right, legitimate book readers and cool people will never buy Rolling Stone because of one non-tarded story, while it is possible for some existing RS readers to get turned on to Castalia.

Agreed. Also, there is no mention of consideration, so it can't be called a contract. But if they make any move to implement this "understanding", the MOU becomes as a treaty- enforceable by the Washington State Patrol, by authority of the state governor, for one example.

So either it's a con if it is not implemented, or it is a gross violation of federal law if it is implemented. Yes/no?

Surprising. I do seldom more than look at the cover of Rolling Stoned... er Stone. Last I was aware Hunter Thompson was the pinnacle of writing over there. I may buy it as my first purchase of RS in an uncounted number of years (if ever).

VFM #6306 wrote:Rolling Stone won't benefit from the article in any case. The Alt-Right, legitimate book readers and cool people will never buy Rolling Stone

Not so fast there, Mr. Vile, sir. Thesis- After losing street cred with the fake-rape meltdown RS could use some rehab and freshening up. This article could be a market test for them. Everybody knows who the cool people are, and RS wants their eyeballs.

Forrest Bishop wrote:That's illegal, afaik. The States are specifically forbidden from working deals with foreign .govsNo, they can't make treaties. Treaties bind the USA. States can do whatever they want within the Constitution, and if they do it in concert with other states (e.g. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York working with Canada on Great Lakes issues) it is 100% legal and legit.

Honestly, you don't want California weighing in on an issue that only affects 6 US states and 2 Canadian provinces. Because fuck California.

@50 upROARious laughter!

whether for economic transformation or for economic transformation.The redundancy there suggests that you weren't exactly thinking when you wrote it.

Forrest Bishop wrote:Doesn't an executive order of the Governor suffice? If not, would you entertain the idea that the entire affair is a con job?It's just Inslee trying to set himself up for a Presidential run in 2024. He doesn't realize what a pathetic faggot he is, and that what plays in WA will not play in most of the country.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:It's just Inslee trying to set himself up for a Presidential run in 2024. He doesn't realize what a pathetic faggot he is, and that what plays in WA will not play in most of the country.

That's an interesting theory. After all, if he can conduct these kind of high-level negotiations with the mighty Republic of Chile then he can certainly conduct them with the ROW. Notice that this particular scam++ started under the previous governor what's-her-name. WA, not CA, is apparently the national leader in the carbon-tax swindle.

In another theory, what is currently playing in WA doesn't play so good in WA a year or two from now, let alone in 2024.

Of course, she'll *won't* write a hit piece on a leading figure of the "Alt-right". Just ask the fraternity guys over at U of VA about "Rolling stones". I think Vox is being a little disingenuous. He obviously knows it will be hit piece, but expect to benefit somehow. We'll find out.

I'm not being disingenuous. As I said, I have read her pieces on distinctly less sympathetic individuals than anyone in the Alt-Right and they were not hit pieces. Furthermore, I noted what her particular points of emphasis were, as well as what she was taking notes on, and they were not consistent with a hit piece.

She never brought up a single WND column or blog post. That, to me, is the chief indicator of a hit piece. We talked about everything from The Missionaries to The Deported. And while we did talk about some of my more controversial positions, such as direct democracy and women's suffrage, it was nothing she couldn't have taken off the blog.